alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 12.2**
I, Fabio de Oliveira Barbosa, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Companhia Vale Do RioDoce;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The company’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:
 a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to thecompany’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
          Date: June 10, 2004                           /s/ Fabio de Oliveira Barbosa   Name:  Fabio de Oliveira Barbosa   Title:  Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7443
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE FRANK GRAVETTE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CR-91-5-MU, CR-91-6-ST, CR-91-15-MU-SH, CA-92-63-MU) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Frank Gravette, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and finding no merit in Appellant's additional claims, and wefind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Gravette , Nos. CR-91-5-MU; CR-91-6-ST; CR91-15-MU-SH; CA-92-63-MU (W.D.N.C. Aug. 8, 1996). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2019206EN.01009703.xml

| 17.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/97 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/97

---

Order of the General Court of 12 April 2019 — Hankintatukku Arno Latvus v EUIPO — Triaz Group (VIVANIA)

(Case T-4/19) (1)

(2019/C 206/88)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 20

- 00140

- CV

Brandon D. Hicks, Appellant

v.
Latisha D. Hicks, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COUR T AT LAW NO. 4 OF WI LLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 19

- 1102

- FC4, THE HONORABLE JOHN B. M CMASTER, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

B randon D. Hicks, appearing pro se, 1 wishes to appeal what he describes as “the

order awarding title to the property located at 2602 Glen Field Drive, Cedar Park, TX in

Williamson County.” Althoug h it is not clear f rom th e notice of appeal or the record, his

description appears to refer to a temporary order rendered in the course of the divorce proceeding

below . Yet a temporary order, “except an order appointing a receiver, is not subject to

interlocutory appeal.” See Te x. Fam. Code § 6.507.

On A pril 15, 2020, this Court sent Hicks a le tter asking him to identify an

appealable judgment or order over which this Court may exercise jurisdiction. Th e letter

in dicated that failure to do so might result in dismissal o f t he appeal. Hicks ’ s resp onse was due

1 We ho ld p ro se litigants to the sa me standard as those represented by couns el. United Copper Indus., Inc. v. Griss om , 17 S.W.3d 797, 805 n.6 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2000, pet. dism ’ d).2

April 27, 2020 , but Hicks did not file a response. Accordingly, because Hicks has not identified

an appealable judgment or order, we dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction.

___________________________________ _______ Edward Smith , Justice

Before Justices Good win , Kelly, and Smith

Di smissed for W ant of J urisdiction

Filed: May 5, 2020
# C_2020191EN.01001401.xml

| 8.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/14

---

Order of the General Court of 31 March 2020 — AP v EIF

(Case T-155/19) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Civil service - EIF Staff - Tendering by the member of staff of her resignation for personal reasons - Leave due to serious illness starting before the end date of the employment contract chosen by the member of staff - Application for withdrawal of the resignation after the end date of the employment contract chosen by the member of staff - EIF’s refusal to accept the retroactive withdrawal of the resignation - End date of the contract delayed on account of sick leave - Whether Article 33 of the EIF Staff Regulations is applicable - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2020/C 191/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AP (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Fund (represented by: M. Leander, N. Panayotopoulos and F. Dascalescu, acting as Agents, and by P-E. Partsch and T. Evans, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the EIF’s letters of 30 August and 3 October 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request of 20 June 2018, secondly, that the EIF be ordered to pay the applicant the benefits under Article 33 of the EIF Staff Regulations and, thirdly, compensation for the non-material harm that the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | AP shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

AP shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

---
EXHIBIT 15

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Supervisory Board of SAP SE:

We consent to
the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-60399, 333-65083, 333-30380, 333-41762, 333-63496, 333-63464, 333-102564, 333-167870, 333-173782 and 333-190780) on Form S-8 of SAP SE of our report dated February 25, 2016,
with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of SAP SE as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2015, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, which report appears in the December 31, 2015 annual report on Form 20-F of SAP SE.



|                               
|-------------------------------
|/s/ KPMG AG                    
|Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft

Mannheim, Germany

March 24,
2016
# C_2020027EN.01001601.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 October 2019 — Criminal proceedings against UC and TD

(Case C-769/19)

(2020/C 27/20)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

UC and TD

Question referred

Is a national law which, in the case of a deficient bill of indictment (the content of which is unclear, incomplete or inconsistent), in no way allows the possibility of these deficiencies being remedied through corrections by the public prosecutor in the preparatory judicial hearing in which the deficiencies are established, and instead always obliges the court to discontinue the judicial proceedings and remit the matter to the public prosecutor’s office for a new bill of indictment to be drawn up, compatible with Article 6 of Directive 2012/13/ЕU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (JO 2012, L 142, p. 1), the principle of having a hearing within a reasonable time pursuant to Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle of the precedence of EU law and the principle of the preservation of dignity, if this causes a considerable delay in the criminal proceedings and the deficiencies could be rectified immediately in the judicial hearing?

---
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Periodic Report

Pursuant
to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned
officer of Renaissance Learning, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that,
to the undersigneds knowledge:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | the
 Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009
 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
| | (2) | the
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                       

|       |             |  |                       |                         
|------ | ----------- |  | --------------------- | ------------------------
|Dated: | May 7, 2009 |  |                       |                         
|       |             |  |                       |                         
|       |             |  | /s/ Terrance
 D. Paul
|       |             |  | Name:                 | Terrance D.
 Paul       
|       |             |  | Title:                | Chief
 Executive Officer

THIS WRITTEN
STATEMENT ACCOMPANIES THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE FILED BY THE COMPANY FOR PURPOSES OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 USC SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Medallion Financial Corp. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1) The Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



|                        |  |                   
|----------------------- |  | ------------------
|                        | 
|By:                     |  | /s/ Alvin Murstein
|Chairman and           
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|Date: March 12, 2013   



70
# C_2019357EN.01002701.xml

| 21.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/27

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Watford Employment Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 22 August 2019 – K and Others v Tesco Stores Ltd

(Case C-624/19)

(2019/C 357/33)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Watford Employment Tribunal (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: K and Others

Defendant: Tesco Stores Ltd

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) directly effective in claims made on the basis that claimants are performing work of equal value to their comparators? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) directly effective in claims made on the basis that claimants are performing work of equal value to their comparators?

| 2. | If the answer to question 1 is no, is the single source test for comparability in Article 157 distinct from the question of equal value, and if so, does that test have direct effect? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question 1 is no, is the single source test for comparability in Article 157 distinct from the question of equal value, and if so, does that test have direct effect?

---
# C_2023063EN.01006801.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/68

---

Order of the General Court of 21 December 2022 — Smith & Nephew USD and Smith & Nephew USD One v Commission

(Case T-780/19) (1)

(2023/C 63/86)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 13 

Honoring the service and sacrifice of members of the United States Armed 

Forces who are serving in, or have served in, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2011 

Mr. ISAKSON (for himself, Mr. BEGICH, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts, Mr. BURR, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. MORAN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. 

SANDERS, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following concurrent resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Honoring the service and sacrifice of members of the United 

States Armed Forces who are serving in, or have served 

in, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn. 

Whereas over 2,000,000 members of the United States 

Armed Forces have deployed to theaters of war since the 

commencement of Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn; 

Whereas hundreds of thousands of members of the United 

States Armed Forces have deployed for multiple tours of 

duty, leaving their homes, their families, and in many 

cases, their civilian jobs; 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 13 IS 

Whereas more than 5,500 members of the United States 

Armed Forces have made the ultimate sacrifice for the 

United States while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan; 

Whereas tens of thousands of members of the United States 

Armed Forces have been seriously wounded in the line of 

duty while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan; 

Whereas the members of the United States Armed Forces 

who have participated in Operation Enduring Freedom, 

Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn have 

answered the call to duty of the United States, serving 

bravely and nobly and, in most cases, without fanfare or 

acclaim; 

Whereas those members of the United States Armed Forces 

and veterans have personified the virtues of patriotism, 

service, duty, courage, and sacrifice; and 

Whereas the people of the United States recognize the service 

and sacrifices made by those members of the United 

States Armed Forces and veterans, as well as their families: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) honors the members of the United States 

4 Armed Forces who are serving in, or have served in, 

5 Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Free6 dom, and Operation New Dawn; and 

7 (2) calls on the people of the United States to 

8 reflect on the service of those members of the United 

9 States Armed Forces and veterans and to hold those 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SCON 13 IS 

1 members and veterans in a special place of honor, 

2 both now and in the future. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2497
CHARLES A. ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARRIS N. GLENDENING; KURT L. SC HMOKE; ALVIN C. COLLINS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA95-1960-S) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles A. Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Steven David Keller, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; William Rowe Phelan, Jr., OFFICE OF THE CITY SOLICITOR, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Allen v. Glendening , No. CA-95-1960-S (D. Md. July 20, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit
        32.2
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 In
        connection with the Annual Report of Oak Hill Financial, Inc. (the "Registrant")
        on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dale B. Shafer,
        Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that:
 
 (1)
        The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
        The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.
 
 */s/
        Dale B. Shafer*
 
 Dale
        B.
        Shafer
 Interim
        Chief Financial Officer
 
 July
        31,
        2007
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 25 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 153
112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 25

Relating to the disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to 
increase the debt limit, as submitted under section 3101A of title 31, 
                 United States Code, on August 2, 2011.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 6, 2011

   Mr. McConnell (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Paul, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
Blunt, Mr. Coats, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Grassley, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Roberts, 
  Mr. Sessions, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Rubio, Mr. 
 Kyl, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Hatch, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Moran, 
  Mr. Wicker, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. Lee) introduced the following joint 
 resolution; which was read twice and placed on the calendar, pursuant 
                 to Public Law 112-25 section 301(a)(2)

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Relating to the disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to 
increase the debt limit, as submitted under section 3101A of title 31, 
                 United States Code, on August 2, 2011.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves of 
the President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as 
exercised pursuant to the certification under section 3101A(a) of title 
31, United States Code.

                                                       Calendar No. 153

112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 25

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Relating to the disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to 
increase the debt limit, as submitted under section 3101A of title 31, 
                 United States Code, on August 2, 2011.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 6, 2011

 Read twice and placed on the calendar, pursuant to Public Law 112-25 
                           section 301(a)(2)
```